Why the justice system resists admitting its mistakes

The justice system resists admitting its mistakes because the people who run it are rewarded for winning, face few consequences for getting it wrong, and have strong personal and institutional reasons never to say they erred. That is the pattern described across three conversations by a wrongful-conviction lawyer, a former county prosecutor, a former governor who served nearly eight years in federal prison, and Joe Rogan.

Josh Dubin tells the story of the Ohio 4, four men convicted of a 1991 murder. He says the case rested on a paid informant's son who came forward after a $2,500 reward, admitted at the first trial that he made the story up, and later recanted to the FBI and in an affidavit. A federal appeals court found a credible claim of actual innocence for one of the men, yet the convictions have stood for three decades. Dubin's core point is immunity: prosecutors face no consequences, even for withholding evidence that points to innocence. He also says the grand jury is no real check, citing the line that "you can indict a ham sandwich."

J.D. Tomlinson, the former prosecutor of the county that convicted the men, reviewed the record and found no evidence of guilt. He had earlier exonerated two other people and apologized to them in court, which an Innocence Project lawyer told him he had never heard a prosecutor do. He credits 15 years as a defense attorney for his openness. When he and the defense filed a joint motion for new trials at the end of his term, his successor, who had a mentor relationship with the original trial prosecutor, withdrew the state's support on his second day in office.

Rod Blagojevich argues federal prosecutors turned political horse-trading into crimes and played only about 2% of the wiretap recordings at trial. Rogan adds the Pennsylvania judge convicted of taking kickbacks for sending children to detention.

They differ on the cause. Blagojevich speaks of corruption and a rigged system, while Dubin and Tomlinson mostly describe ego, loyalty and the difficulty of admitting error. Tomlinson says the system works most of the time and trusts police more than prosecutors. They also differ on the fix: Rogan wants an independent review panel, Dubin wants accountability, and Tomlinson wants prosecutors to have defense experience.

The article says to weigh the accounts differently. The Ohio case rests on a recantation and a federal court's finding. Blagojevich's is a convicted defendant's version, and the kickback story is told briefly.

What to do with it: vote in local races, especially for county prosecutor, and look for candidates with defense experience. Support accountability for withheld evidence. Be skeptical of cases built on one paid or pressured witness, and ask what evidence has not been shown. Follow the money. Support officials who admit mistakes and the advocates who reopen cases. If you are under investigation, talk to a qualified criminal defense attorney before you say anything.

Dubin's closing line sums up the hope: "The humanity in all of us should always bend toward the truth."